TARAKARAMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

10(23C)(vi) approval :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 318, 319, 320 & 321/Hyd/2020 goes to root of the matter. That being the case, we quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., Vs., CIT [229 ITR 383] (SC) and All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd., Vs. DCIT (2012) [137 ITD 217](SB) (Mumbai) that - this purely

KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

10(23C)(vi) approval :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 318, 319, 320 & 321/Hyd/2020 goes to root of the matter. That being the case, we quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., Vs., CIT [229 ITR 383] (SC) and All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd., Vs. DCIT (2012) [137 ITD 217](SB) (Mumbai) that - this purely

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

10(23C)(vi) approval :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 318, 319, 320 & 321/Hyd/2020 goes to root of the matter. That being the case, we quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., Vs., CIT [229 ITR 383] (SC) and All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd., Vs. DCIT (2012) [137 ITD 217](SB) (Mumbai) that - this purely

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act separately. Therefore, once again making additions on the basis of seized documents is incorrect. Since the assessee is able to reconcile the difference by filing relevant evidence, in our considered view, the additions made by the A.O. on the basis of provisional financial statements cannot be upheld. Therefore, we direct

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act separately. Therefore, once again making additions on the basis of seized documents is incorrect. Since the assessee is able to reconcile the difference by filing relevant evidence, in our considered view, the additions made by the A.O. on the basis of provisional financial statements cannot be upheld. Therefore, we direct

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act separately. Therefore, once again making additions on the basis of seized documents is incorrect. Since the assessee is able to reconcile the difference by filing relevant evidence, in our considered view, the additions made by the A.O. on the basis of provisional financial statements cannot be upheld. Therefore, we direct

SRI SAI CONSTRUCTION CO,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

TDS under section 194C of the Act. Although, the Assessing Officer has made 10% ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT)-II, HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.725/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dy. C.I.T (It)-Ii Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Aadcs4061P (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/Order

10% TDS as per DTAA is contrary to provisions of section 206AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. nature. 15. Accordingly, it is stated that the issue in case of Wipro Ltd. was whether the payment was for computer software amounted to royalty and whether TDS was applicable on the same. However, in the present facts of the Appellant, the issue is not whether the payment for obtaining licenses of software

NIPPON KOEI CO. LTD.,BEGUMPET vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

10,265/- made by the Ld. AO on account of interest paid under section 201(1A) of the Act for delay in deposit of tax deducted at source (“TDS

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 92C of the Act 4.5. The AO/TPO erred in re-characterizing the nature of transaction from ‘Receivable’ to ‘loan’ which is not permissible u/s. 145 of the Act. 4.6. The AO/TPO Ought to have appreciated the fact that the outstanding receivables are consequential/ closely linked to the sale of services to the AE during the normal course of business

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

Section 115JAA of the Act\namounting to Rs.10,93,41,440\n6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has\nerred in considering the TDS at Rs.9,42,69,564 as against\nRs. 10,21,50,744\n7. That

ANALOGICS TECH INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

10. This decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court declaring the law under the provision under section 36(1)(va) of the Act will take the retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically. In the decision, nothing contrary is indicated for any prospective effect only. It is, therefore clear that the law under section

HCC CP PL JV,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Hcc Cp Pl Jv, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward –14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaaah5541G. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Appeared Through Hybrid Mode) Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

TDS. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of IVRCL-KBL (JV) Vs. ACIT reported in (2016) 289 CTR 0111 AP. 10 9. The learned Senior A.R., Shri Srinath Sadanala, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that as per Section

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

10. Apropos the challenge of the assessee company to the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act of Rs.17,868/-, the CIT(A) observed that it was the claim of the assessee company that as there was no default on its part in depositing the amount of tax deducted at source (TDS

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS returns in Form No.26Q belatedly after expiry of 10 years from prescribed time limit and the assessee had submitted that he was unaware of provisions of section

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS returns in Form No.26Q belatedly after expiry of 10 years from prescribed time limit and the assessee had submitted that he was unaware of provisions of section

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS returns in Form No.26Q belatedly after expiry of 10 years from prescribed time limit and the assessee had submitted that he was unaware of provisions of section